Lendl

Agassi

1) Connors - 5 wins + 2 finals
-97 matches won (a record by some distance)
-12 SF in a row
-from 1973-1991 only twice didn't reach the QF stage, one of those when he didn't play at all
-the only player to win the US Open on 3 different surfaces (in fact he beat Borg twice on clay there)
- reached the US semi in 1991 aged 39

2) Sampras - 5 wins + 3 finals
- won the US Open in his teens, 20's and 30's
- a 12 year difference between his first (1990) and last wins (2002)
- 4-0 against his main rival there (Agassi) who never pushed him to a 5th set

3) Federer - 5 wins + 1 final
- 5 consecutive wins (against 5 different opponents)
- 40 consecutive victories
- almost 90 % of the matches won (a record atm)
- 8 consecutive SF appearances and counting
- won two 6-0 sets in one of the finals (04 against Hewitt)
- lost only 12 sets in 2004-2008, pushed to a 5-setter only twice

from 1973-1991 only twice didn't reach the QF stage, one of those when he didn't play at all

Click to expand...

had 12 straight SF's there, which is a record at any major.

97 matches won (a record by some distance)

Click to expand...

doesn't he have 98 matches won?

Its a shame he didn't play all the majors throughout his career, his career stats strongly indicate he would likely have the most matches won at every major(is also the leader at Wimbledon), most slam semis, quarters etc had he done so. Santoro is the all time leader with 70 majors appearances, but his career was so much shorter than Connors.

McEnroe (3 wins in a row

Click to expand...

in 1981 McEnroe became the first player since Tilden in the 20s to win 3 straight US Championships, a fact that got much attention at the time.

This really is only a competition between Sampras and Federer. While it's neat that Connors won the USO on Har-Tru,that isn't the hard court that everyone else is playing on. Plus, the court was much faster in Sampras' and in the beginning of Federer's reign. Until(less) Federer wins another USO, they're tied.

This really is only a competition between Sampras and Federer. While it's neat that Connors won the USO on Har-Tru,that isn't the hard court that everyone else is playing on. Plus, the court was much faster in Sampras' and in the beginning of Federer's reign. Until(less) Federer wins another USO, they're tied.

Click to expand...

The fact that Connors won on multiple surfaces (Grass, Har-Tru and Hard) adds to his achievement rather than takes away from it.

Regarding Federer/Sampras tie - Sampras is ahead because he has reached 2 more finals than Federer.

The fact that Connors won on multiple surfaces (Grass, Har-Tru and Hard) adds to his achievement rather than takes away from it.

Regarding Federer/Sampras tie - Sampras is ahead because he has reached 2 more finals than Federer.

Click to expand...

You couldn't be more wrong. The purpose of the grand slams is this: you have the pinnacle tournament for each surface.

AO: Med-slow hard court
FO: Clay
WB: Grass
USO: Fast hard court

Winning on the four different surfaces is what shows dominance of the grand slams. Let's look at it like this: Rafa won the USO, and no one thought he could possibly win it because it's the fast hard court slam. What if in 2010 it was changed to clay and Rafa won? No one would give his career slam any or at least as much merit. No one is denying that Connors is one of the all time greats. The point is the best US Open player. If you want to talk about the best player who plays a GS level tournament in New York state, then yes, Connors can be in the poll. Since it's obvious that it's about the fast hard court slam at the end of the year, he's not in contention with Sampras and Federer.

And about the Sampras finals: Federer won all of his consecutively. Tie restored.

The five in a row plus the quality of Federer's wins made me put him over the top. I feel that if it would have been as fast as when Sampras won it then Federer would be looking at 5 to 8 USO titles. As for the quality, I don't think I have a slam final as dominant as the 2004 USO final. Many talk about Federer's high quality of play at Wimbledon, but to me his best tennis has been at the USO.

Jimmy Connors is the ideal player for the US Open. He would use the crowd energy to it's finest point. No wonder he did well all those years at US.

Sampras and Federer may have won the same amount of titles....their temperament isn't going to give them edge. Still Federer has a shot to be better than Sampras and Connors at the US.....but I doubt Djokovic and Nadal will let him stain it.

You couldn't be more wrong. The purpose of the grand slams is this: you have the pinnacle tournament for each surface.

AO: Med-slow hard court
FO: Clay
WB: Grass
USO: Fast hard court

Winning on the four different surfaces is what shows dominance of the grand slams. Let's look at it like this: Rafa won the USO, and no one thought he could possibly win it because it's the fast hard court slam. What if in 2010 it was changed to clay and Rafa won? No one would give his career slam any or at least as much merit. No one is denying that Connors is one of the all time greats. The point is the best US Open player. If you want to talk about the best player who plays a GS level tournament in New York state, then yes, Connors can be in the poll. Since it's obvious that it's about the fast hard court slam at the end of the year, he's not in contention with Sampras and Federer.

And about the Sampras finals: Federer won all of his consecutively. Tie restored.

Click to expand...

Is it about that though? I mean US Open was on grass first, so if Wimbledon gets changed to hardcourt will the greatest Wimbledon player then become about who is the greatest on the new hardcourt version?

Difficult to discount Connors for me but also not the others fault that they never played it on grass or clay. Federer at best has a tie, 5 wins in a row nd 6 finals is impressive and he was one point away from making 7 finals and another point away from 8 finals in a row which would tie Lendl but with more wins and tie Sampras's amount of finals with them tied on wins but having more finals and wins in a row. Given the closeness he got to this I can't really chose between connors, Sampras or Federer, maybe edge to Sampras.

I voted for Sampras. I don't think it matters that much if you win the titles consecutively. I think Sampras would have the edge over Federer at the USO. When Pete was on at Flushing Meadows, no one could stop him.

I voted for Sampras. I don't think it matters that much if you win the titles consecutively. I think Sampras would have the edge over Federer at the USO. When Pete was on at Flushing Meadows, no one could stop him.

Click to expand...

Except Korda, Safin, Hewitt, and Yzaga right? Have you not seen the 2004 USO final? It doesn't get much more on than that.

I voted for Sampras. I don't think it matters that much if you win the titles consecutively. I think Sampras would have the edge over Federer at the USO. When Pete was on at Flushing Meadows, no one could stop him.

Click to expand...

Ehhmm...Federer barely lost any sets in any of his 2004-2008 wins, especially 05,06,07, Sampras lost to Yzaga in 1994 (and was forced to a 5th set in the 2nd roud by Novak), was match points down against Corretja in 1996, lost to Kodra at the 1997 US Open, that's only his peak years. Later on he used to get owned by Safin and Hewitt in the 00' and 01' US finals respectively.

So please, could you please tell us in which exact matches Sampras was "on" at the US Open? Cause I don't remember Sampras being dominant in ANY of the US Opens he played.

I voted for Sampras. I don't think it matters that much if you win the titles consecutively. I think Sampras would have the edge over Federer at the USO. When Pete was on at Flushing Meadows, no one could stop him.

Click to expand...

BS -- is that why he lost to Petr Korda or Jamie Yzaga (I'm not going to bring up Safin and Hewitt, because I know the answer that Pete-****s come up with)?

Ehhmm...Federer barely lost any sets in any of his 2004-2008 wins, especially 05,06,07, Sampras lost to Yzaga in 1994 (and was forced to a 5th set in the 2nd roud by Novak), was match points down against Corretja in 1996, lost to Kodra at the 1997 US Open, that's only his peak years. Later on he used to get owned by Safin and Hewitt in the 00' and 01' US finals respectively.

So please, could you please tell us in which exact matches Sampras was "on" at the US Open? Cause I don't remember Sampras being dominant in ANY of the US Opens he played.

Send him over. I'd love to meet the guy. I just find double bageling Hewitt to be more impressive than beating Courier 2, 4, and love. Hewitt's greatest strength has always been his ability to get the balls back. Courier had a great forehand(for the time) and a good serve. To do that to Hewitt you would need to have surgical precision which I believe Federer did. But yes you are right. Edberg's performance was a great one.

Send him over. I'd love to meet the guy. I just find double bageling Hewitt to be more impressive than beating Courier 2, 4, and love. Hewitt's greatest strength has always been his ability to get the balls back. Courier had a great forehand(for the time) and a good serve. To do that to Hewitt you would need to have surgical precision which I believe Federer did. But yes you are right. Edberg's performance was a great one.

Click to expand...

Aight, Maybe I shouldn't be the one to comment on that as I'm biased against Federer and haven't actually seen the match and therefore can't comment on how he played (though I've seen the Edberg match), but I probably would've watched the final if JoJo would've won his semi. So for the purposes of this conversation I'll redact my comment until I've seen the 2004 USO final and hopefully have provided an unbiased view.

Aight, Maybe I shouldn't be the one to comment on that as I'm biased against Federer and haven't actually seen the match and therefore can't comment on how he played (though I've seen the Edberg match), but I probably would've watched the final if JoJo would've won his semi. So for the purposes of this conversation I'll redact my comment until I've seen the 2004 USO final and hopefully have provided an unbiased view.

BTW, How come Fed got in a tiebreak situation in the 2nd?

Click to expand...

Hewitt is a scrappy fighter and Federer has been prone to momentary lapses on occasion. He went up 2-0 in the set and was returning at 2-4 with a good chance to go up 5-2 and should have served it out at 5-4 but he didn't. I just feel that Federer's forehand was going off with the accuracy of a sniper in that match.

Ehhmm...Federer barely lost any sets in any of his 2004-2008 wins, especially 05,06,07, Sampras lost to Yzaga in 1994 (and was forced to a 5th set in the 2nd roud by Novak), was match points down against Corretja in 1996, lost to Kodra at the 1997 US Open, that's only his peak years. Later on he used to get owned by Safin and Hewitt in the 00' and 01' US finals respectively.

So please, could you please tell us in which exact matches Sampras was "on" at the US Open? Cause I don't remember Sampras being dominant in ANY of the US Opens he played.

Click to expand...

1993 was Pete Sampras' most dominant US Open win, 2 sets dropped in the tournament, 1 against Daniel Vacek in the R64 and 1 against Michael Chang in the quarter finals. Federer dropped just 2 sets in his 2006 and 2007 US Open wins. Connors dropped just 1 set in winning the 1976 US Open.

Not since Neale Fraser in 1960 has a men's singles player won the title without dropping a set in the tournament.

1993 was Pete Sampras' most dominant US Open win, 2 sets dropped in the tournament, 1 against Daniel Vacek in the R64 and 1 against Michael Chang in the quarter finals. Federer dropped just 2 sets in his 2006 and 2007 US Open wins. Connors dropped just 1 set in winning the 1976 US Open.

Not since Neale Fraser in 1960 has a men's singles player won the title without dropping a set in the tournament.

Click to expand...

Well Federer with Sampras 1993 US draw wouldn't've lost a single set. Sampras had Volkov in the SF and Pioline in the F while Fed had Blake, Davydenko, Roddick in the 06 US and Roddick, Davydenko, Djokovic in the 07 US.

These are the semifinalists during the years Sampras and Federer made it to the quarterfinals or better. I think it's pretty clear their was more variety in Sampras era, and I think this indicates that it was more competitive during those years.